Graph of the day

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has helpfully done an analysis of the manifesto proposals of the main parties (see here). The graph below is their analysis of how current Conservative plans will influence the income of people in different parts of the income distribution. It shows, the richest 10% just about managing, while the poorest 10% loose 9% of their income.

The manifesto does nothing to address this – not what you might expect from the claim on page 9 to “abhor social division, injustice, unfairness, and inequality.” But then, what politicians say is one thing, what they do is another.

In the interest of balance, I should add that the next page of the IFS report shows that Labour is better but could have gone much further (see here). The case for a progressive spend and tax policy is strong. For evidence, have a look at Sweden.

Comments

  1. Sean Danaher -

    Very depressing but not unexpected sadly. This is moving in totally the wrong direction. I am fortunate enough to be towards the top end of the distribution and don’t mind paying more. Its scandalous that the poorest in society have to take most of the burden.

  2. Peter May -

    Everything about the Conservative manifesto is regressive and wrong headed.
    It’s just a sales pitch from their marketing department. Once you’ve bought it then they don’t care. There’s no warranty. We have to trust the Conservatives to look after us. As if!
    The Labour manifesto is a breath of fresh air, though really it’s just Old Labour! If by some mischance Labour get in, I’d hope they look to the Swedish experience for ideas down the line.

  3. Simon Cohen -

    As someone in probably the lowest decile ( or should it be dodecile?) I am aware that the impact of benefit cuts (12 billion a year planned by the Tories) will impact this group very significantly. Another five years of the Tories’ illiterate economics will ensure further struggle as Universal Credit reduces the incomes of this group and on aggregate means even less money circulating in the economy, given that 1.5 trillion in circulation is private, household debt ( sort of ‘anti-money’) it simply makes this worse.
    Housing is THE central issue yet the Tories treat it as a taboo – could this be related to 30% of Tory M.P.s having interests in the housing pie? Labour ( after a hundred years since the idea was introduced by the liberals and then dropped) have put Land Value Tax back on the table but first there has to be a steady deflation of the bubble in order to avoid a negative equity fest.

    This is what happens when you have 35 years of Government’s pretending they are supine in the face of financialisation.

Comments are closed.